Brantley v. Wysocki

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

June 15, 2015

KALILAH BRANTLEYv.KEYE WYSOCKI, et al.

MEMORANDUM

KEARNEY, J.

As alleged, to retaliate and punish a subordinate union member for publicly challenging her union activities, one union member supervisor solicited the aid of her close friend, a state police officer, to engineer a criminal complaint for secretly taping an earlier union meeting, visit the union member at work, seize and listen to her cell phone without a warrant under threat of arrest and then, after finding nothing substantive on the tape, prompt the Commonwealth to prosecute the complaining union member for illegally taping protests at a union meeting which occurred almost six months earlier. The trial court suppressed the cell phone recording as illegally obtained and the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed. Thereafter, the trial court granted the Commonwealth's nolle prosequi motion. The subordinate union member now sues the state police officer and the union supervisor as allegedly working in concert as well as the union members' employer. In the accompanying Order, we grant the employer's motion to dismiss the supervisory liability claim and grant the individual defendants' motions to dismiss a Section 1983 claim for malicious prosecution and selective enforcement and vindictive prosecution. At this preliminary stage, we do not dismiss claims against the alleged friendly individual defendant state police officer and union supervisor for the state law claim of malicious prosecution and First Amendment retaliation.

I. FACTS PLEAD IN SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff union member Kalilah Brantley ("Brantley") repeatedly confronted her supervisor Renee Burrows ("Burrows") while they worked at U.S. Airways Group, Inc. ("USAir") regarding union policy. (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 10) At another supervisor's direction, Brantley left work early on December 28, 2010.[1](Id. ¶ 11) The following day, Burrows called Brantley to her office with four (4) co-workers and asked her to sign a "coaching review, " representing she left early the previous day. (Id. ¶ 12) Brantley refused to sign. (Id.) On December 30, 2010, Burrows and other USAir employees including Brantley attended a union meeting at which the parties discussed Burrows' accusations of job abandonment and violation of union contract terms. (Id. ¶ 13) Brantley alleges she verbally opposed Burrows' actions which, she claims, violated union policy. (Id.) Brantley admits using her cell phone to secretly record, or attempt to record, two minutes of the forty-five (45) minute meeting. (Id. ¶¶ 14-15) When asked, she confessed taping the meeting but claims Burrows did not ask her to stop or delete the recording. (Id.)

Over the next two weeks in January 2011, Brantley continued to verbally oppose Burrows' continued violations of union policy. (Id. ¶ 16) During this time, Burrows went to Keye Wysocki, a close friend serving as a Pennsylvania State Police Officer ("Officer Wysocki"). (Id. ¶ 17) On January 18, 2011, Officer Wysocki personally took Burrows to file a criminal complaint with the Philadelphia police department alleging Brantley recorded the December 30, 2010 union meeting without her consent. (Id. ¶ 18) On February 8, 2011, Officer Wysocki, another John Doe officer and fellow Officer Keith Hagan[2], wearing plain clothes, approached Brantley at her USAir workplace demanding she turn over the cell phone allegedly used to record Burrows six weeks earlier. (Id. ¶ 19) Brantley refused and asked the police officers if they had a search warrant. (Id. ¶ 20) They did not. (Id.) Wysocki said he did not need a warrant vaguely explaining a friend asked him to look into something. Wysocki threatened to arrest Brantley if she resisted his efforts to take her phone. (Id.) Brantley called her mother and Wysocki threatened her mother if Brantley did not turn over the phone, "she's gonna get her ass kicked." (Id. ¶ 21)

Brantley then adjourned to another room at USAir and turned over her cell phone. (Id. ¶¶ 22-23) Officer Wysocki listened to the recording on Brantley's phone and left. (Id. ¶ 23) Almost four months later, the Commonwealth issued a police summons charging Brantley with "Intercept Communication." (Id. ¶ 24) After a hearing at which Wysocki allegedly admitted conducting the investigation on Burrows' behalf, the trial court suppressed the tape recorded evidence. (Id. ¶ 26) The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed. (Id. ¶ 31) The Commonwealth moved for nolle prosequi and the trial court dismissed the case in January 2013. Brantley does not plead the reason for the nolle prosequi.

II. ANALYSIS

Brantley sued her employer USAir, her supervisor Burrows and Pennsylvania State Police Officer Wysocki along with John Doe officers claiming malicious prosecution under state law and 42 U.S.C. §1983 (Count I), Selective Enforcement/Prosecution and Vindictive Prosecution (Count II), and First Amendment Retaliation under Section 1983 (Count III). Each Defendant moves to dismiss. The facts alleged in the Second Amended Complaint barely meet the plausibility standard allowing us to draw a reasonable inference Defendants Burrows and Wysocki, acting in concert, may be liable for malicious prosecution under state law and First Amendment retaliation under Section 1983.[3]

A. Burrows and Wysocki may be liable for acting in concert, but not USAir.

Section 1983 does not create substantive rights, but provides "a remedy for the deprivations of rights established elsewhere in the Constitution or federal laws." Green v. Chester Upland Sch. Dist, No. 14-3685, 2015 WL 409569, at *2 (E.D. Pa. 2015) (citing Kopec v. Tate, 361 F.3d 772, 775-76 (3d Cir. 2004)). To defeat a motion to dismiss a § 1983 claim, Brantley must allege facts sufficient to show (1) a person acting under color of state law deprived her of (2) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Id. at *2.

Burrows' and Wysocki's §1983 liability

Burrows is not a state actor. A private actor and a public actor working in concert may form a civil conspiracy to violate an individual's civil rights under § 1983.[4]Adickes v. Kress & Co, 398 U.S. 144, 150-52 (1970)(finding state action where private party and state official conspired to violate plaintiff's equal protection rights); Schmitt v. Farruggio, No. 13-2007, 2014 WL 4055835, at *4 (E.D. Pa. 2014)(allegations suggesting "willful action in concert" sufficient to avoid dismissal of private actor). To state such a claim, Brantley must plead the circumstances of alleged wrongdoing with particularity to place Defendants on notice of the precise misconduct with which they are charged. Particular allegations of conspiracy, such as those addressing the period of time, the object and actions taken in furtherance of the conspiracy, are sufficient to avoid dismissal. Labalokie v. Capital Area Intermediate Unit, 926 F.Supp. 503, 508-09 (M.D. Pa. 1996).

Burrows claims she cannot be considered a state actor unless Brantley sufficiently alleged a conspiracy or "pre-arranged plan" between her and the police. After dismissing the Amended Complaint for failing to sufficiently allege a conspiracy (ECF Doc. No. 35), we find the Second Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges concerted action by Burrows and Officer Wysocki to meet the requirement of state action under section 1983.[5] "[T]he Court must look beyond the bare allegations of the Complaint and consider whether the conduct reasonably could have occurred." Labalokie, 926 F.Supp. at 508-09.

Subject to developing facts in discovery, Brantley's claims of First Amendment retaliation and malicious prosecution under state law will not be dismissed outright ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.